Did Silvia Batista have a conflict of interest acting as an interpreter?

[ShiningInLuz]

This web entry was supported by a link which has subsequently disappeared.
http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14070&sid=7c0d0c8ed6dd8ecedb83682290d29550#p380929
"Como funciona esse serviço no resort?
Resp:O h├│spede deve pedir pelo telefone e as garotas (meninas inglesas) v├úo at├® o quarto para cuidar das crian├ºas. ├ë gratuito e est├í inclu├¡do no pacote de f├®rias, assim como as recrea├º├Áes diurnas. Mas os McCann n├úo pediram esse servi├ºo.

How does this service (babysitting) work in the resort?
Answer (Sylvia Batista): The guest has to make the request by phone and the babysitters (English girls) go to the room to look after the children. This is free and is included in the holiday package, as is the daily recreation. But the McCanns did not request this service."
So from that it appears the one of the services is "babysitting".  It would make sense since SB says she offered this to the McCanns.  What I find odd from her response is that the service for on site babysitters is "free" for I have seen it previously quoted at 15 Euro per hour.  What is the truth about the cost of the babysitting service?

This quote was posted on this forum some years back http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6341.35;wap2

This service is mentioned in the Summary http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm  "at an additional cost, apart from another babysitting service with no defined schedule"  That doesn't flow right for me to understand that.  I think we'd call that "cash under the table", is that what they mean?

https://www.oceanclubresorts.com/cms/images/babysitting_services.pdf It may have been different in Portugal in 2007
From someone who went to Algarve http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2007/05/my_experience_o.html "The McCanns’ choice to leave their children at the flat and make regular checks is surprising given the alternatives. In their defence, they may have been expecting, as advertised in Mark Warner brochures, a ‘listening service’. Staff told us that the service had been discontinued because the apartments were too spread out. The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring.

I can imagine the McCanns’ dilemma. The ‘dining out club’ was more than a five-minute walk from where the McCanns stayed along cobbled streets or a winding pedestrian path through the apartments. It’s not far - it worked brilliantly for us on most nights - but it would have felt much further if you had to ferry thee children there and back (and hope they were still asleep after doing so). Plus parents were required to wait until children under two, which includes the McCanns’ twins, were asleep. We talked to parents who said this was enough to put them off the option."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm
". For an additional fee, parents can obtain a "babysitting" service without a fixed time, to be arranged between the parents and the baby-sitter."
So it definitely wasn't free.

From Stacey Portz   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STACY-POTZ.htm
"--- Further still is the "Babysitting" service between 19h30 and 01h00 carried out in the apartments of the persons using it."  So it went right through to 1:00 AM.

Stating or implying that Silvia Batista was personally making money from baby sitting services without evidence of such is libel.  Do not repeat it.

[Mr Gray]

Stating or implying that Silvia Batista was personally making money from baby sitting services without evidence of such is libel.  Do not repeat it.

But accusing two parents on neing drunk with no evidence is quite acceptable

[Robittybob1]

Stating or implying that Silvia Batista was personally making money from baby sitting services without evidence of such is libel.  Do not repeat it.

Could you kindly make some enquires as to how the money generated from the babysitting fees is split between the OC and the girls please?

[ShiningInLuz]

But accusing two parents of being drunk with no evidence is quite acceptable

If you have seen a post which states they were drunk, you should have reported it.  I cannot recall anything that came near to that in the period that I have been a moderator, but of course I may have missed it.  Should I see such a post in future, I would amend or delete it, with warning points if appropriate.

I suggest you either provide evidence of your claim or desist.  Moderators are entitled to protection from libel too.

Drinking = yes, since there is ample evidence of that.  Drunk = no, since there is no evidence to support it.

[ShiningInLuz]

Could you kindly make some enquires as to how the money generated from the fees is split between the OC and the girls?

I don't need to.  It's all in the files. 

The parents could put a child in the night crèche.  From memory this service was free. 

Alternatively, the parents could request that one of the childminders baby-sat in their apartment.  The fee for that was agreed between the parents and the childminder.  In my experience that is how baby-sitting is usually arranged.  There is no evidence of the OC controlling this, or of the OC or anyone in the OC taking a cut.

Our granddaughter was deflated at New Year.  She had agreed to baby-sit for our children's youngsters whilst the kids had a New Year out.  They had agreed a modest fee for this service. in something like August.  Our granddaughter is a very popular baby-sitter, and as New Year approached she received multiple offers to babysit at €20 per hour, which she had to refuse.  I dare say she will remember next New Year that parents are keen to go out on the eve, and that demand for baby-sitters outstrips supply.

The only OC 'involvement' is that those doing private deals would not be those scheduled for duty in the night crèche, as they were not free.  Again without checking the files, the parents tended to ask the childminder who looked after their children during the day, presumably to ensure a familiar face.

[jassi]

Could you kindly make some enquires as to how the money generated from the babysitting fees is split between the OC and the girls please?

Could you explain to me the relevance of this ?

[ShiningInLuz]

Could you explain to me the relevance of this ?

This relates to a non-evidenced allegation that I have recently removed from Robbity's post.  Please don't ask him to repeat it.

[Robittybob1]

The babysitting provided by OC had to be organised officially through a manager as I have shown in my previous post.
"How does this service (babysitting) work in the resort?
Answer (Sylvia Batista): The guest has to make the request by phone and the babysitters (English girls) go to the room to look after the children. This is free and is included in the holiday package, as is the daily recreation. But the McCanns did not request this service."

  I would be most surprised if it was casually arranged between the girls and guests.
I would also be most surprised if the "in room babysitting service" was free. I understand the night creche was part of the package.

Could you explain to me the relevance of this ?

I was simply trying to find if there was a conflict of interest when Silvia Batista was doing the translating.

Could you kindly make some enquires as to how the money generated from the babysitting fees is split between the OC @ PDL and the girls please?

[Robittybob1]

It is weird that Silvia Batista makes no mention of Emma Knight, and how Emma Knight misses making a statement till nearly a year later.

Is there even a hint that Emma Knight is the one who called Silvia to do the translations?  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7824.msg373266#msg373266

No trace of Emma Knights in Silvia's statement.
Does it happen the other way around, does Emma acknowledge the presence of Silvia?

Emma states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
"In March 2007 I travelled to the Mark Warner complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal. My position was Client Support Manager and my function was to receive and welcome the new guests and be available to resolve any problem that might arise during their stay. "


John Hill sends her back to the apartment:
"The hotel manager, John Hill arrived at the location from which the searches were being organised and I can confirm that he called the police. John stayed at the location and I several times went to search the grounds. I went with Amy and we searched the highest part of the complex behind the apartments. The search lasted for about 10 minutes and then we returned. At that moment John asked me to go to the apartment the girl had disappeared from and, on behalf of Mark Warner, provide all the help the family might need."

Maybe that is where and why Emma Knights calls Silvia because John said "provide all the help the family might need.
For they definitely needed a translator.

Emma mentions John Hill but not Silvia Batista.  We seem to be having one of these not seeing moments again.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.0

[Robittybob1]

Were I you I would stop wasting my time and potentially getting RSI until I had sorted out who was contracted to do what and what all the contractual relationships were.
Until you know that you are guessing wildly.
I'll join in again when you have posted copies of all the contracts.

I'll see if Operation Grange can sort that out, for it is not covered that well in the file.

[Robittybob1]

Were I you I would stop wasting my time and potentially getting RSI until I had sorted out who was contracted to do what and what all the contractual relationships were.
Until you know that you are guessing wildly.
I'll join in again when you have posted copies of all the contracts.

I don't think that really matters. 

[Robittybob1]

It is weird that Silvia Batista makes no mention of Emma Knight, and how Emma Knight misses making a statement till nearly a year later.

Is there even a hint that Emma Knight is the one who called Silvia to do the translations?  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7824.msg373266#msg373266

No trace of Emma Knights in Silvia's statement.
Does it happen the other way around, does Emma acknowledge the presence of Silvia?

Emma states:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
"In March 2007 I travelled to the Mark Warner complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal. My position was Client Support Manager and my function was to receive and welcome the new guests and be available to resolve any problem that might arise during their stay. "


John Hill sends her back to the apartment:
"The hotel manager, John Hill arrived at the location from which the searches were being organised and I can confirm that he called the police. John stayed at the location and I several times went to search the grounds. I went with Amy and we searched the highest part of the complex behind the apartments. The search lasted for about 10 minutes and then we returned. At that moment John asked me to go to the apartment the girl had disappeared from and, on behalf of Mark Warner, provide all the help the family might need."

Maybe that is where and why Emma Knights calls Silvia because John said "provide all the help the family might need.
For they definitely needed a translator.

Emma mentions John Hill but not Silvia Batista.  We seem to be having one of these not seeing moments again.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.0

How come I don't get any comments on a post like this?

[Robittybob1]

What I couldn't understand is why Silvia's evidence about Robert Murat was allowed to remain in the file even though she didn't turn up at the confrontational meeting between Robert Murat and the three other who identified him in the file (all three were from the Tapas 7 group).

Pegasus kept on saying this was because SB didn't feel confident about her accusation.  OK but then she should have been re-questioned and her statement changed.

[misty]

José Carlos Leal Pimental – Statement, 16 May 2007
    
Processos Volume V
Pages 1346 – 1347

Witness Statement

José Carlos Leal Pimental

Date: 2007 – 05 – 16

Occupation: GNR Officer
*snipped*
When asked about Robert Murat, he says that he does not remember having seen him at dawn, having seen him during the day on 4th May in the afternoon at about 17.00- 18.00. He saw Murat pass by close to the mobile post accompanied by Officer Costa. At this time he was searching, he (RM) appeared with roll of electrical cable, that he was going to give to the mobile GNR post in the Rua Agostinho da Silva.

The witness saw him that night at about 22.30 in the Tapas restaurant. He was sitting at a table with some OC employees, including, as he recalls, Silvia responsible for maintenance at the resort.

=====================================================================

So, Sylvia still managed to get her identification of the man she saw the night before wrong?

[G-Unit]

What I couldn't understand is why Silvia's evidence about Robert Murat was allowed to remain in the file even though she didn't turn up at the confrontational meeting between Robert Murat and the three other who identified him in the file (all three were from the Tapas 7 group).

Pegasus kept on saying this was because SB didn't feel confident about her accusation.  OK but then she should have been re-questioned and her statement changed.

Silvia never actually said she saw him. She said she saw;

an individual of about 1,70m, short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses, wanted from the start to help finding the child Madeleine McCann...... That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

So someone told her it was him, she didn't know him. In fact she suggests that other people are asked;

She admits as possible that Paul and June of the bar "Duke of Holland" and Mr. Byron of the firm JNB (management of properties in PDL) should be able to confirm if Robert Murat was there when Madeleine disappeared, and eventually other details.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

Most of the other stuff about Silvia, responsibilities and baby sitters seems to be from Portuguese news articles. Are they more or less trustworthy than UK news articles I wonder?